many of this "distinctions" existed way back before the 1054, but no one had anything against them... it was a sore of unity in diversion... the latins have a different culture than the easterns, and orientals , and so on...

The problem is... Those all contributed to the schism. No one is asking for absolute conformity to the Byzantine Rite. What I'm arguing, is that certain "diversions" are inappropriate and shouldn't be allowed period. That doesn't mean there can be some differences in rites.

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

Like I said, we need to absolutely purge ourselves of these various disgusting western innovations and ideas.

Sigh. Disgusting?

I guess this just turns your stomach.

That should never ever be allowed. If there are existing icons that have been blessed and are in a westernized fashion, then once they wear down and fade from use, if restored, then they need to be repainted in a traditional manner. And iconographers should not be allowed to paint anymore icons in that westernized/realistic fashion. That is a corruption from the Western Churches that came about due to the Venetians, Italians, and other Westerners on places like Greece and Russia. It is unfitting for holy icons to be painted in such a manner, and as I said, no more should be allowed, and those existing are permissible, and preferably, if restored, should be repainted in a traditional fashion.

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

The only time we kneel here at my parish, is when we say the prayer before communion.. with all of the "Amen's" and "I will not give you a kiss as did Judas.." -- I can't remember the whole thing, it's very long. We are part of the GOAA, therefore under Archbishop Demetrios.

Ave AveChriste! In my OCA parish, except for those who must sit down, we stand most of the time. Most folks sit down (on the floor or the pews against the sides of the church) only for the reading of the Epistle and during the sermon, even though it is permissible to sit during the antiphons.

Regarding kneeling, we kneel only during the kneeling prayers after Pentecost, which are done right after DL to catch the largest possible number of participants. At other times, after making the sign of the cross, we either bow down from the waist, touching the floor with our right hand, or we prostrate ourselves (but never on Sunday). The closest we get to kneeling is when some of us kind of flex our knees so that the priest does not have to strain to put Communion in our mouths.

We say two two following short prayers before communion:

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. Moreover, I believe that this is truly thine immaculate Body and that this is truly thy most precious Blood. Therefore, I pray Thee, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, both voluntary and involuntary, in word or in deed, in knowledge or in ignorance. And grant that I may partake of thy Holy Mysteries without condemnation, for the remission of sins and for life everlasting.

Of thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, today admit me a partaker, for I will not tell of thy Mysteries unto thine enemies, neither will I give Thee a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief do I confess Thee: remember me, O Lord, in thy kingdom; remember me, O Master, in thy kingdom; remember me, O Holy One, when Thou comest into thy kingdom. Not for judgment nor for condemnation be the partaking of thy Holy Mysteries unto me, O Lord, but for healing of soul and body.

Of course, words are not adequate to describe our more of worship, which is slightly different than some other jurisdictions an d it may be a good thing if you could come and see one day.

During a DL celebrated outside a Sunday we kneel during the Our Father during the Liturgy of gifts.

OCA Parish.

And by "we" I mean our Priest and some of us, too many pews for everyone to do it if packed. The kneeling is coupled with a bow of sorts.

Right. In my old church (Bulgarian Diocese--OCA), we used to kneel not only during Our Father but also during We Hymn Thee and the pre-communion prayers. I think they were left over ethnic practices, as Augustin says, the way we used to do them in the Old Country. The problem is that this is against an ancient Canon and seems to have developed to make up for the congregation's lack of rigor. In a way, this is similar to requiring a long and rigorous preparation before confession/communion in local churches that had fallen into the habit of four confessions/communions per year for the laity. So, in my Bulgarian parish of the OCA we practiced a variation of the same impulse to make things more rigorous even at the last moment to stress the holiness and importance of what we are experiencing.

The only time we kneel here at my parish, is when we say the prayer before communion.. with all of the "Amen's" and "I will not give you a kiss as did Judas.." -- I can't remember the whole thing, it's very long. We are part of the GOAA, therefore under Archbishop Demetrios.

Ave AveChriste! In my OCA parish, except for those who must sit down, we stand most of the time. Most folks sit down (on the floor or the pews against the sides of the church) only for the reading of the Epistle and during the sermon, even though it is permissible to sit during the antiphons.

Regarding kneeling, we kneel only during the kneeling prayers after Pentecost, which are done right after DL to catch the largest possible number of participants. At other times, after making the sign of the cross, we either bow down from the waist, touching the floor with our right hand, or we prostrate ourselves (but never on Sunday). The closest we get to kneeling is when some of us kind of flex our knees so that the priest does not have to strain to put Communion in our mouths.

We say two two following short prayers before communion:

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. Moreover, I believe that this is truly thine immaculate Body and that this is truly thy most precious Blood. Therefore, I pray Thee, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, both voluntary and involuntary, in word or in deed, in knowledge or in ignorance. And grant that I may partake of thy Holy Mysteries without condemnation, for the remission of sins and for life everlasting.

Of thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, today admit me a partaker, for I will not tell of thy Mysteries unto thine enemies, neither will I give Thee a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief do I confess Thee: remember me, O Lord, in thy kingdom; remember me, O Master, in thy kingdom; remember me, O Holy One, when Thou comest into thy kingdom. Not for judgment nor for condemnation be the partaking of thy Holy Mysteries unto me, O Lord, but for healing of soul and body.

Of course, words are not adequate to describe our more of worship, which is slightly different than some other jurisdictions an d it may be a good thing if you could come and see one day.

During a DL celebrated outside a Sunday we kneel during the Our Father during the Liturgy of gifts.

OCA Parish.

And by "we" I mean our Priest and some of us, too many pews for everyone to do it if packed. The kneeling is coupled with a bow of sorts.

Right. In my old church (Bulgarian Diocese--OCA), we used to kneel not only during Our Father but also during We Hymn Thee and the pre-communion prayers. I think they were left over ethnic practices, as Augustin says, the way we used to do them in the Old Country. The problem is that this is against an ancient Canon and seems to have developed to make up for the congregation's lack of rigor. In a way, this is similar to requiring a long and rigorous preparation before confession/communion in local churches that had fallen into the habit of four confessions/communions per year for the laity. So, in my Bulgarian parish of the OCA we practiced a variation of the same impulse to make things more rigorous even at the last moment to stress the holiness and importance of what we are experiencing.

Isn't the problem kneeling on Sunday and not necessarily kneeling during Liturgy?(I would argue there is a big difference between kneeling/prostrating and sitting... two are acts of humility, the other is an act of relaxation - which will we do before the throne of God, which we are standing before during the Liturgy?)

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

So, if a person has a severe allergy to alcohol, you would not allow him to take the Bread (Body of Christ) alone?

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

What does have to do with alcoholism? You are a moving target now.

Yes, if you have an alcohol allergy (I am quickly going through my computer banks in my head to think of how this could be remotely possible and if so its likelihood. I don't need google) that will kill you, don't drink alcohol.

And an ounce is a fair amount of alcohol, you are not even going to get close to that, not by a mile by being Communed.

This is I do know, because I can do basic math.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

So, if a person has a severe allergy to alcohol, you would not allow him to take the Bread (Body of Christ) alone?

It is the Body & Blood of Christ. It might taste like alcohol and bread, but its not. It is literally his body and his blood. Do you deny this?

Like I said, we need to absolutely purge ourselves of these various disgusting western innovations and ideas.

Sigh. Disgusting?

I guess this just turns your stomach.

That should never ever be allowed. If there are existing icons that have been blessed and are in a westernized fashion, then once they wear down and fade from use, if restored, then they need to be repainted in a traditional manner. And iconographers should not be allowed to paint anymore icons in that westernized/realistic fashion. That is a corruption from the Western Churches that came about due to the Venetians, Italians, and other Westerners on places like Greece and Russia. It is unfitting for holy icons to be painted in such a manner, and as I said, no more should be allowed, and those existing are permissible, and preferably, if restored, should be repainted in a traditional fashion.

I would agree with you if you had not made such a sweeping and categorical statement. I too would prefer traditional icons. I too agree that many icons in many Orthodox Churches show Western influences. However, it is too much when you start demanding rather than recommending.

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

The flu certainly could be. Extremely, extremely unlikely though. If you think otherwise, you are outta your mind.

If you think the Eucharist magically alter the physical world (that's not even close to Orthodoxy), then next you take Communion let me dump whatever amount of poison I want, and you take it.

You are getting into snake handling territory.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

The flu certainly could be. Extremely, extremely unlikely though. If you think otherwise, you are outta your mind.

If you think the Eucharist magically alter the physical world (that's not even close to Orthodoxy), then next you take Communion let me dump whatever amount of poison I want, and you take it.

You are getting into snake handling territory.

Need I mention the Priest who gave communion to someone with rabies, who then regurgitated it, and the Saint immediately consumed it and wasn't harmed?

No, it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the Eucharist to transmit any illness.

(BTW, hasn't that occurred in history, persecutors lacing communion with poison, and it doing nothing?)

I don't know if you know this or not, but if you add anything, water, more wine, etc... to the chalice after its been consecrated, what you added immediately becomes the body & blood of Christ. Yes, it does alter things, it is completely changed.

Even Holy Water can be this way... At our parish, if we encounter a cup of holy water that hasn't been consumed, we either consume it ourselves or pour it on a plant (that is, under it), we don't worry so much about disease transmission, because it is Holy Water. If Holy Water is like this, how much more so is the Eucharist pure and unable to transmit disease!

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

So, if a person has a severe allergy to alcohol, you would not allow him to take the Bread (Body of Christ) alone?

It is the Body & Blood of Christ. It might taste like alcohol and bread, but its not. It is literally his body and his blood. Do you deny this?

It is the Body and Blood of Christ. However, what would happen if a chemist were to conduct an examination under a microscope. He would see the chemical appearances of bread and wine.The chemist would not see the biological and chemical characteristics of human flesh and human blood.

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

So, if a person has a severe allergy to alcohol, you would not allow him to take the Bread (Body of Christ) alone?

It is the Body & Blood of Christ. It might taste like alcohol and bread, but its not. It is literally his body and his blood. Do you deny this?

It is the Body and Blood of Christ. However, what would happen if a chemist were to conduct an examination under a microscope. He would see the chemical appearances of bread and wine.The chemist would not see the biological and chemical characteristics of human flesh and human blood.

Possibly, but how do you know this? I don't think it has ever been done with Orthodox sacraments.

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

The flu certainly could be. Extremely, extremely unlikely though. If you think otherwise, you are outta your mind.

If you think the Eucharist magically alter the physical world (that's not even close to Orthodoxy), then next you take Communion let me dump whatever amount of poison I want, and you take it.

You are getting into snake handling territory.

Need I mention the Priest who gave communion to someone with rabies, who then regurgitated it, and the Saint immediately consumed it and wasn't harmed?

No, it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the Eucharist to transmit any illness.

(BTW, hasn't that occurred in history, persecutors lacing communion with poison, and it doing nothing?)

I don't know if you know this or not, but if you add anything, water, more wine, etc... to the chalice after its been consecrated, what you added immediately becomes the body & blood of Christ. Yes, it does alter things, it is completely changed.

Even Holy Water can be this way... At our parish, if we encounter a cup of holy water that hasn't been consumed, we either consume it ourselves or pour it on a plant (that is, under it), we don't worry so much about disease transmission, because it is Holy Water. If Holy Water is like this, how much more so is the Eucharist pure and unable to transmit disease!

And some Saints have bi-located. So what?

Wanna try? I am sure there is a Priest in the Old World that augustin can set us up with who would like to pull this one on you.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 04:01:51 PM by orthonorm »

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

The flu certainly could be. Extremely, extremely unlikely though. If you think otherwise, you are outta your mind.

If you think the Eucharist magically alter the physical world (that's not even close to Orthodoxy), then next you take Communion let me dump whatever amount of poison I want, and you take it.

You are getting into snake handling territory.

Need I mention the Priest who gave communion to someone with rabies, who then regurgitated it, and the Saint immediately consumed it and wasn't harmed?

No, it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the Eucharist to transmit any illness.

(BTW, hasn't that occurred in history, persecutors lacing communion with poison, and it doing nothing?)

I don't know if you know this or not, but if you add anything, water, more wine, etc... to the chalice after its been consecrated, what you added immediately becomes the body & blood of Christ. Yes, it does alter things, it is completely changed.

Even Holy Water can be this way... At our parish, if we encounter a cup of holy water that hasn't been consumed, we either consume it ourselves or pour it on a plant (that is, under it), we don't worry so much about disease transmission, because it is Holy Water. If Holy Water is like this, how much more so is the Eucharist pure and unable to transmit disease!

And some Saints have bi-located. So what?

Wanna try? I am sure there is a Priest in the Old World that augustin can set up with who would like to pull this one on you.

Why would I want to test God? You know, testing God almost never ends up in a good way for the person testing him.

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

So, if a person has a severe allergy to alcohol, you would not allow him to take the Bread (Body of Christ) alone?

It is the Body & Blood of Christ. It might taste like alcohol and bread, but its not. It is literally his body and his blood. Do you deny this?

It is the Body and Blood of Christ. However, what would happen if a chemist were to conduct an examination under a microscope. He would see the chemical appearances of bread and wine.The chemist would not see the biological and chemical characteristics of human flesh and human blood.

Possibly, but how do you know this? I don't think it has ever been done with Orthodox sacraments.

So once the Pope meets meets demands, whose gonna organize enough Orthodox priests to take over the Roman churches, install iconostasis and transfer everything to eastern rite, and then rebaptize all the faithful (including the clergy up to and including the Pope) as laymen after being properly catechized?

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

The flu certainly could be. Extremely, extremely unlikely though. If you think otherwise, you are outta your mind.

If you think the Eucharist magically alter the physical world (that's not even close to Orthodoxy), then next you take Communion let me dump whatever amount of poison I want, and you take it.

You are getting into snake handling territory.

Need I mention the Priest who gave communion to someone with rabies, who then regurgitated it, and the Saint immediately consumed it and wasn't harmed?

No, it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the Eucharist to transmit any illness.

(BTW, hasn't that occurred in history, persecutors lacing communion with poison, and it doing nothing?)

I don't know if you know this or not, but if you add anything, water, more wine, etc... to the chalice after its been consecrated, what you added immediately becomes the body & blood of Christ. Yes, it does alter things, it is completely changed.

Even Holy Water can be this way... At our parish, if we encounter a cup of holy water that hasn't been consumed, we either consume it ourselves or pour it on a plant (that is, under it), we don't worry so much about disease transmission, because it is Holy Water. If Holy Water is like this, how much more so is the Eucharist pure and unable to transmit disease!

And some Saints have bi-located. So what?

Wanna try? I am sure there is a Priest in the Old World that augustin can set up with who would like to pull this one on you.

Why would I want to test God? You know, testing God almost never ends up in a good way for the person testing him.

Nice. So you agree with me. Thanks.

At least that is one move you have made here that ain't pure foolishness.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

With reference to 4. Administer Holy Communion (both body & blood) to all Church members, including infants. I would not agree with this as a requirement to receive Holy Communion. It could be an alternative, but not a requirement. This is because some people, such as alcoholics, are unable to take alcoholic beverages.

Nein.

This is crazy. The amount of alcohol you are going to get in Communing is almost nil.

No one is going on a bender after that. There is more alcohol content in many foods I have seen plenty of recovering "real" alcoholics, myself included eat and not go nuts.

Now, you might want to skip washing down the Eucharist with a gulps of the manny. But at my parish we don't even have that anymore.

For those who have a true alcohol allergy, less than an ounce of alcohol can send a person into anaphylactic shock.

I'm guessing you're one of them also that believes AIDs, the Flu, and other such illnesses can be transmitted through the Eucharist... Ugh...

So, if a person has a severe allergy to alcohol, you would not allow him to take the Bread (Body of Christ) alone?

It is the Body & Blood of Christ. It might taste like alcohol and bread, but its not. It is literally his body and his blood. Do you deny this?

It is the Body and Blood of Christ. However, what would happen if a chemist were to conduct an examination under a microscope. He would see the chemical appearances of bread and wine.The chemist would not see the biological and chemical characteristics of human flesh and human blood.

Possibly, but how do you know this? I don't think it has ever been done with Orthodox sacraments.

It is my opinion on it.

Which contradicts Orthodox tradition and praxis. I don't think even the Roman Catholic Church would share your opinion, but if it does, then I think that just proves my point.

So once the Pope meets meets demands, whose gonna organize enough Orthodox priests to take over the Roman churches, install iconostasis and transfer everything to eastern rite, and then rebaptize all the faithful (including the clergy up to and including the Pope) as laymen after being properly catechized?

Union with the RC as it is now is no union, but just falling from the Tree of Life.

For a union to be true, I have already suggested a list of attitude and punctual changes elsewhere. Here it is again:

What I would expect from a *true* union would be:

From the Orthodox:

Apologize for and a more outspoken condemnation of phyletism;

Acknowledgemnt that the multi-culturalism of RC is the traditional way;

Acknowledgment that the role of the primate is more than just honorific;

Abandon the idea of infallibility of Councils; councils can and have stated heresies, they can and have been reproached by other elements of the Church;

Use the expression "through the Son" after "proceeds from the Father" instead of nothing;

Deal with excessive anti-rationalism;

Translate traditional liturgical rites and use them instead of foreign language rites;

(Just added)Organize itself in canonical terms around the world: one city - one bishop; Archdioceses, Metropolias, Eparchies and Patriarchates are not the institutional church per se, but the local diocese is. Supra-diocesical institutions such as Archdioceses, Metropolias, Eparchies and Patriarchates have an *assistive* role for communication and organization of the local churches. The concept is that "The National Association of Hospitals" is a necessary important institution, but it is not a hospital. Each hospital has its own head-doctor and administrator who is the bishop. The Patriarch or Metropolitan is a head doctor of his own hospital, and the "President" of the "National Association", not a kind of "top-head-doctor" that can interfere in every hospital. His authority over the other head-doctors is while members of the National Association, not as head-doctors of their own hospitals.

From the Roman church:

Apologize for and abandon the concept of infallibility of the Pope; popes can and have stated heresies, they can and have been reproached by other elements of the Church;

Abandon the monarchical model of primacy. Even if it was fit for Modern West (Medieval to Pre-WW I period) it was unfit for the East during the same period. The primate did not act as archpastor if he chose a model that was fit to just half the Church;

Use the expression "through the Son" instead of "and of the Son" after "proceeds from the Father";

Acknowledge that the Immaculate Conception is a theologumen and not a dogma;

Deal with excessive rationalism and emotionalism;

Translate traditional liturgical rites to local languages and use them instead of "modern" rites;

Allow married men to become priests;

Give the Most Pure Blood of Christ in Communion to lay people as well;

Statues are not a problem per se; yet, church imagery is not just decoration, they are tools of healing and should follow some rules. Church art cannot be over expressive, it should not immitate the body realistically, etc. etc. Church statues should be 3D icons. The artistic depictions of the West though can and should be preserved and developed, but as art, not as the tools of the hospital that is the church;

(just added)Abandon the excessive formulation of "Co-Mediatrix";

From both sides:Reasses their lists of saints and devotions;Become more active in the world;Emphasys on ascetic life as the proper Christian life;Stop condescending with worldly fashionable ideologies;Stop condescending with criminal and/or immoral clergy;Nor separation, nor union with the State: symphony when the State is not Anti-Christian, and outright vocal opposition when it is, if not from the people oppressed under such regimes, but from their brothers elsewhere;Focus on Christ above all and on saints above celebrities;

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

So once the Pope meets meets demands, whose gonna organize enough Orthodox priests to take over the Roman churches, install iconostasis and transfer everything to eastern rite, and then rebaptize all the faithful (including the clergy up to and including the Pope) as laymen after being properly catechized?

With reference to 19. Sitting during worship:At our local Church there is a young lady who is crippled and attends Church sitting in a wheelchair. I would not agree with objecting to her sitting in her wheelchair during worship.

The only time we kneel here at my parish, is when we say the prayer before communion.. with all of the "Amen's" and "I will not give you a kiss as did Judas.." -- I can't remember the whole thing, it's very long. We are part of the GOAA, therefore under Archbishop Demetrios.

Ave AveChriste! In my OCA parish, except for those who must sit down, we stand most of the time. Most folks sit down (on the floor or the pews against the sides of the church) only for the reading of the Epistle and during the sermon, even though it is permissible to sit during the antiphons.

Regarding kneeling, we kneel only during the kneeling prayers after Pentecost, which are done right after DL to catch the largest possible number of participants. At other times, after making the sign of the cross, we either bow down from the waist, touching the floor with our right hand, or we prostrate ourselves (but never on Sunday). The closest we get to kneeling is when some of us kind of flex our knees so that the priest does not have to strain to put Communion in our mouths.

We say two two following short prayers before communion:

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. Moreover, I believe that this is truly thine immaculate Body and that this is truly thy most precious Blood. Therefore, I pray Thee, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, both voluntary and involuntary, in word or in deed, in knowledge or in ignorance. And grant that I may partake of thy Holy Mysteries without condemnation, for the remission of sins and for life everlasting.

Of thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, today admit me a partaker, for I will not tell of thy Mysteries unto thine enemies, neither will I give Thee a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief do I confess Thee: remember me, O Lord, in thy kingdom; remember me, O Master, in thy kingdom; remember me, O Holy One, when Thou comest into thy kingdom. Not for judgment nor for condemnation be the partaking of thy Holy Mysteries unto me, O Lord, but for healing of soul and body.

Of course, words are not adequate to describe our more of worship, which is slightly different than some other jurisdictions an d it may be a good thing if you could come and see one day.

During a DL celebrated outside a Sunday we kneel during the Our Father during the Liturgy of gifts.

OCA Parish.

And by "we" I mean our Priest and some of us, too many pews for everyone to do it if packed. The kneeling is coupled with a bow of sorts.

Right. In my old church (Bulgarian Diocese--OCA), we used to kneel not only during Our Father but also during We Hymn Thee and the pre-communion prayers. I think they were left over ethnic practices, as Augustin says, the way we used to do them in the Old Country. The problem is that this is against an ancient Canon and seems to have developed to make up for the congregation's lack of rigor. In a way, this is similar to requiring a long and rigorous preparation before confession/communion in local churches that had fallen into the habit of four confessions/communions per year for the laity. So, in my Bulgarian parish of the OCA we practiced a variation of the same impulse to make things more rigorous even at the last moment to stress the holiness and importance of what we are experiencing.

Isn't the problem kneeling on Sunday and not necessarily kneeling during Liturgy?(I would argue there is a big difference between kneeling/prostrating and sitting... two are acts of humility, the other is an act of relaxation - which will we do before the throne of God, which we are standing before during the Liturgy?)

Well, no. You could kneel on a Sunday, when for example, you are a football player on the sidelines, proposing marriage to your loved one, asking for your wife's permission (come to think of it, prostration may be a better idea but then you will have no forewarning). Just kidding.

I would not over-analyze/dogmatize these things. The way I understand it, there were only two ways to react to the presence of God: erect or prostrate. However, you can see that kneeling may have become an alternative to prostrations amongst Orthodox who live in Muslim countries (too much like them!). Kneeling is also a sign of respect in many cultures that is halfway a prostration and standing erect, where standing erect shows equivalency, kneeling reflects subordination and prostration demonstrates abasement.

So, as members of His body, we are given the privilege and right to stand in His presence as a witness to His Resurrection on the third day. You are right, sitting down would be a sign of disrespect but only for those who could stand up. There is no disrespect if you cannot sit up (ADDED) or IMHO if you are in physical discomfort or pain that disrupts your worship. Bottom line: these are small matters that are not that important in the scheme of things.

With reference to 19. Sitting during worship:At our local Church there is a young lady who is crippled and attends Church sitting in a wheelchair. I would not agree with objecting to her sitting in her wheelchair during worship.

Nowhere do I object to that. There is a difference between using economia for the sick and infirm, and letting everyone sit as a norm.

I believe that there are a number of things on that list that should be done away with (Papal universal jurisdiction for example), but there are a number of things that just simply need to be reevaluated and possibly reformulated (unless you think they were wrong to anathematize Protestantism at the council of Trent) and others are simply a western cultural expression of the same faith (transubstantiation). Please forgive me for being too lazy to go over the list point by point and share my opinion at this time.

I believe that there are a number of things on that list that should be done away with (Papal universal jurisdiction for example), but there are a number of things that just simply need to be reevaluated and possibly reformulated (unless you think they were wrong to anathematize Protestantism at the council of Trent) and others are simply a western cultural expression of the same faith (transubstantiation). Please forgive me for being too lazy to go over the list point by point and share my opinion at this time.

Did I ever say that it should be a deal-breaker? Like I said before. Its something that needs to change, but not a deal-breaker. Though it is something they would eventually have to change.

I have no problem with art being painted in this fashion, as long as it is theologically correct. But there is a difference between iconography and other art. In churches, it should be iconography, but if you want to paint something else with religious frescoes, then I have no problem with realistic paintings.In fact, our house has western religious art in it. Do I believe that has a place in church? No... Should I kiss it? Definitely not... But is it beautiful? Yes...

The Sistine chapel is an absolutely beautiful work of art, and being a fan of the classical tradition, I love it. But on the ecclesiastical level, its absolutely disgusting and shouldn't have been permitted.Especially how he put real people's faces in the painting of the Last Judgement, including Leonardo Da Vinci being condemned by Christ to hell, even though it looks like its supposed to be St. Barnabus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_judgement.jpg

I believe that there are a number of things on that list that should be done away with (Papal universal jurisdiction for example), but there are a number of things that just simply need to be reevaluated and possibly reformulated (unless you think they were wrong to anathematize Protestantism at the council of Trent) and others are simply a western cultural expression of the same faith (transubstantiation). Please forgive me for being too lazy to go over the list point by point and share my opinion at this time.

Did I ever say that it should be a deal-breaker? Like I said before. Its something that needs to change, but not a deal-breaker. Though it is something they would eventually have to change.

I have no problem with art being painted in this fashion, as long as it is theologically correct. But there is a difference between iconography and other art. In churches, it should be iconography, but if you want to paint something else with religious frescoes, then I have no problem with realistic paintings.In fact, our house has western religious art in it. Do I believe that has a place in church? No... Should I kiss it? Definitely not... But is it beautiful? Yes...

The Sistine chapel is an absolutely beautiful work of art, and being a fan of the classical tradition, I love it. But on the ecclesiastical level, its absolutely disgusting and shouldn't have been permitted.Especially how he put real people's faces in the painting of the Last Judgement, including Leonardo Da Vinci being condemned by Christ to hell, even though it looks like its supposed to be St. Barnabus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_judgement.jpg

I agree that there is a good amount of western artwork that should not have been produced, but at the same time, something doesn't necessarily have to be eastern in order to glorify Christ.

I believe that there are a number of things on that list that should be done away with (Papal universal jurisdiction for example), but there are a number of things that just simply need to be reevaluated and possibly reformulated (unless you think they were wrong to anathematize Protestantism at the council of Trent) and others are simply a western cultural expression of the same faith (transubstantiation). Please forgive me for being too lazy to go over the list point by point and share my opinion at this time.

Did I ever say that it should be a deal-breaker? Like I said before. Its something that needs to change, but not a deal-breaker. Though it is something they would eventually have to change.

I have no problem with art being painted in this fashion, as long as it is theologically correct. But there is a difference between iconography and other art. In churches, it should be iconography, but if you want to paint something else with religious frescoes, then I have no problem with realistic paintings.In fact, our house has western religious art in it. Do I believe that has a place in church? No... Should I kiss it? Definitely not... But is it beautiful? Yes...

The Sistine chapel is an absolutely beautiful work of art, and being a fan of the classical tradition, I love it. But on the ecclesiastical level, its absolutely disgusting and shouldn't have been permitted.Especially how he put real people's faces in the painting of the Last Judgement, including Leonardo Da Vinci being condemned by Christ to hell, even though it looks like its supposed to be St. Barnabus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_judgement.jpg

Devin does it strike you oddly how often you use the word I when speaking about and especially for the Church.

You do realize there is that whole Communion of Believers thing, right?

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

With reference to 14. Adoption of secular/heterodox music into liturgical worship.I kind of agree with this, except that do you consider Gregorian chant to be heterodox? Also, would you condemn the use of musical instrumentation, except for bells, at DL ?

With reference to 14. Adoption of secular/heterodox music into liturgical worship.I kind of agree with this, except that do you consider Gregorian chant to be heterodox? Also, would you condemn the use of musical instrumentation, except for bells, at DL ?

Heterodox hymns?

Does that include all the beautiful Slavic/ethnic hymns that are sung at divine liturgies?...for one example? And if they are to be preserved then what is wrong with theologically correct hymns from other WESTERN traditions:

I believe that there are a number of things on that list that should be done away with (Papal universal jurisdiction for example), but there are a number of things that just simply need to be reevaluated and possibly reformulated (unless you think they were wrong to anathematize Protestantism at the council of Trent) and others are simply a western cultural expression of the same faith (transubstantiation). Please forgive me for being too lazy to go over the list point by point and share my opinion at this time.

Did I ever say that it should be a deal-breaker? Like I said before. Its something that needs to change, but not a deal-breaker. Though it is something they would eventually have to change.

I have no problem with art being painted in this fashion, as long as it is theologically correct. But there is a difference between iconography and other art. In churches, it should be iconography, but if you want to paint something else with religious frescoes, then I have no problem with realistic paintings.In fact, our house has western religious art in it. Do I believe that has a place in church? No... Should I kiss it? Definitely not... But is it beautiful? Yes...

The Sistine chapel is an absolutely beautiful work of art, and being a fan of the classical tradition, I love it. But on the ecclesiastical level, its absolutely disgusting and shouldn't have been permitted.Especially how he put real people's faces in the painting of the Last Judgement, including Leonardo Da Vinci being condemned by Christ to hell, even though it looks like its supposed to be St. Barnabus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_judgement.jpg

Devin does it strike you oddly how often you use the word I when speaking about and especially for the Church.

You do realize there is that whole Communion of Believers thing, right?

I think he is just giving his opinion on things as he sees them, which is what I am doing also.

I believe that there are a number of things on that list that should be done away with (Papal universal jurisdiction for example), but there are a number of things that just simply need to be reevaluated and possibly reformulated (unless you think they were wrong to anathematize Protestantism at the council of Trent) and others are simply a western cultural expression of the same faith (transubstantiation). Please forgive me for being too lazy to go over the list point by point and share my opinion at this time.

Did I ever say that it should be a deal-breaker? Like I said before. Its something that needs to change, but not a deal-breaker. Though it is something they would eventually have to change.

I have no problem with art being painted in this fashion, as long as it is theologically correct. But there is a difference between iconography and other art. In churches, it should be iconography, but if you want to paint something else with religious frescoes, then I have no problem with realistic paintings.In fact, our house has western religious art in it. Do I believe that has a place in church? No... Should I kiss it? Definitely not... But is it beautiful? Yes...

The Sistine chapel is an absolutely beautiful work of art, and being a fan of the classical tradition, I love it. But on the ecclesiastical level, its absolutely disgusting and shouldn't have been permitted.Especially how he put real people's faces in the painting of the Last Judgement, including Leonardo Da Vinci being condemned by Christ to hell, even though it looks like its supposed to be St. Barnabus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_judgement.jpg

Devin does it strike you oddly how often you use the word I when speaking about and especially for the Church.

You do realize there is that whole Communion of Believers thing, right?

I think he is just giving his opinion on things as he sees them, which is what I am doing also.

And strangely, no matter certain you both are, he remains frequently wrong.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 05:09:08 PM by orthonorm »

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

With reference to 14. Adoption of secular/heterodox music into liturgical worship.I kind of agree with this, except that do you consider Gregorian chant to be heterodox? Also, would you condemn the use of musical instrumentation, except for bells, at DL ?

Heterodox hymns?

Does that include all the beautiful Slavic/ethnic hymns that are sung at divine liturgies?...for one example? And if they are to be preserved then what is wrong with theologically correct hymns from other WESTERN traditions:

Right. That would be my question on #14 also. Although I can see the objection to some of the more secular hymns as being irreverent to some extent.

I believe that there are a number of things on that list that should be done away with (Papal universal jurisdiction for example), but there are a number of things that just simply need to be reevaluated and possibly reformulated (unless you think they were wrong to anathematize Protestantism at the council of Trent) and others are simply a western cultural expression of the same faith (transubstantiation). Please forgive me for being too lazy to go over the list point by point and share my opinion at this time.

Did I ever say that it should be a deal-breaker? Like I said before. Its something that needs to change, but not a deal-breaker. Though it is something they would eventually have to change.

I have no problem with art being painted in this fashion, as long as it is theologically correct. But there is a difference between iconography and other art. In churches, it should be iconography, but if you want to paint something else with religious frescoes, then I have no problem with realistic paintings.In fact, our house has western religious art in it. Do I believe that has a place in church? No... Should I kiss it? Definitely not... But is it beautiful? Yes...

The Sistine chapel is an absolutely beautiful work of art, and being a fan of the classical tradition, I love it. But on the ecclesiastical level, its absolutely disgusting and shouldn't have been permitted.Especially how he put real people's faces in the painting of the Last Judgement, including Leonardo Da Vinci being condemned by Christ to hell, even though it looks like its supposed to be St. Barnabus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_judgement.jpg

Devin does it strike you oddly how often you use the word I when speaking about and especially for the Church.

You do realize there is that whole Communion of Believers thing, right?

I think he is just giving his opinion on things as he sees them, which is what I am doing also.

And strangely, no matter certain you both are, you remain frequently wrong.

With reference to 14. Adoption of secular/heterodox music into liturgical worship.I kind of agree with this, except that do you consider Gregorian chant to be heterodox? Also, would you condemn the use of musical instrumentation, except for bells, at DL ?

All it means is that they should stop including things like Protestant hymns into their services. It would also include having "composers" redo every service every time. Kind of the way they were doing things with Bach, etc...

I have no problem with such music as long as its used only outside of Liturgy. Look at Metropolitan Hilarion's compositions, like his St. Matthews Passion. Its absolutely beautiful, but it cannot be used in Liturgy.

With reference to 14. Adoption of secular/heterodox music into liturgical worship.I kind of agree with this, except that do you consider Gregorian chant to be heterodox? Also, would you condemn the use of musical instrumentation, except for bells, at DL ?

Heterodox hymns?

Does that include all the beautiful Slavic/ethnic hymns that are sung at divine liturgies?...for one example? And if they are to be preserved then what is wrong with theologically correct hymns from other WESTERN traditions:

Right. That would be my question on #14 also. Although I can see the objection to some of the more secular hymns as being irreverent to some extent.

With reference to 14. Adoption of secular/heterodox music into liturgical worship.I kind of agree with this, except that do you consider Gregorian chant to be heterodox? Also, would you condemn the use of musical instrumentation, except for bells, at DL ?

Heterodox hymns?

Does that include all the beautiful Slavic/ethnic hymns that are sung at divine liturgies?...for one example? And if they are to be preserved then what is wrong with theologically correct hymns from other WESTERN traditions:

Right. That would be my question on #14 also. Although I can see the objection to some of the more secular hymns as being irreverent to some extent.

Isn't "secular hymn" something of an oxymoron?

Yes, to some extent. I was thinking of the blasting rock music, with gigantic speakers and shirtless bearded longhairs, girls in short skirts and low cut blouses, blasting away and singing and swaying with their guitars and electronic organs at the altar during a Mass.

I believe that there are a number of things on that list that should be done away with (Papal universal jurisdiction for example), but there are a number of things that just simply need to be reevaluated and possibly reformulated (unless you think they were wrong to anathematize Protestantism at the council of Trent) and others are simply a western cultural expression of the same faith (transubstantiation). Please forgive me for being too lazy to go over the list point by point and share my opinion at this time.

Did I ever say that it should be a deal-breaker? Like I said before. Its something that needs to change, but not a deal-breaker. Though it is something they would eventually have to change.

I have no problem with art being painted in this fashion, as long as it is theologically correct. But there is a difference between iconography and other art. In churches, it should be iconography, but if you want to paint something else with religious frescoes, then I have no problem with realistic paintings.In fact, our house has western religious art in it. Do I believe that has a place in church? No... Should I kiss it? Definitely not... But is it beautiful? Yes...

The Sistine chapel is an absolutely beautiful work of art, and being a fan of the classical tradition, I love it. But on the ecclesiastical level, its absolutely disgusting and shouldn't have been permitted.Especially how he put real people's faces in the painting of the Last Judgement, including Leonardo Da Vinci being condemned by Christ to hell, even though it looks like its supposed to be St. Barnabus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_judgement.jpg

Devin does it strike you oddly how often you use the word I when speaking about and especially for the Church.

You do realize there is that whole Communion of Believers thing, right?

I think he is just giving his opinion on things as he sees them, which is what I am doing also.

And strangely, no matter certain you both are, you remain frequently wrong.

Which of my opinions is wrong?

Stanley, I apologize. I ain't gonna get into the reasons too much. But I started my day misreading something very poorly and having to apologize for it, this time for typing so.

I'll see if I can edit it.

I meant:

And strangely, no matter certain you both are, he remains frequently wrong.

Point being, an RC is again making an OC look silly.

Again apologies. I'll try to edit the post.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Tiny aside here: in the U.S., we have a song called the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." It may qualify as a secular hymn, if there can be such a thing. Although it is replete with religious imagery, it is not today confined to use by one church, but is almost entirely associated with marching bands and patriotic occasions.